Ethiopia | Community Feedback Report

An analysis of Community Feedback from Camp Coordination and Camp Managment activities, using the Zite Manager Community Feedback Mechanism.

Author

International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Published

19 April 2024

The aim of the report is to provide a more in-depth analysis of the multi-sectoral CFM program managed by CCCM. The analysis is done predominately by sector to support all service providers working in displacement sites understanding of community feedback. It is important for the humanitarian response to be operationally accountable for our collective response to community feedback.

This analysis is automatically generated every quarter for each Camp Coordination and Camp Management program using Zite Manager to support their multi-sectoral Community Feedback Mechanism.

This section needs some additions and editing. The following should be added:

Warning

This analysis is in a draft stage. Content and structure are subject to change, and the calculations will undergo verification before publication

1 Key highlights

Manually extract 3 to 4 key highlights from the analysis. For example:

  • In the first quarter of 2024, X tickets were recieived Y% of which were resolved.
  • The number of tickets represent a X% increase/decrease on the previous quarter.
  • The top 3 issues raised were X, Y and Z, withthe highest number of tickets relating to the X sector.
  • Any noticable change in trends.
Figure 1: Overview map

2 Overview

Over the reporting period 851 community feedback tickets were received by 38 CCCM staff working across 58 CCCM managed sites. The amount of feedback received has TBC by TBC% compared to last quarter. Most feedback was attributed to the following sectors: WASH, SNFI, FSL.

Of the feedback submitted, 54.1% of total tickets submitted by women and 45.7% submitted by men. The most common feedback channel used is CCCM Mobile Collector with 48.3% of feedback reported this way.

Of the total feedback received, 791 tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and 54 tickets were closed upon receipt . Of the feedback referred, SNFI received the most referrals.

Warning

A sankey flow diagram will be added here to show the flow of tickets through the various stages of the CFM

Referrals by Sector
sector count
SNFI 189
WASH 186
FSL 145
Health 76
CCCM 74
Protection 65
Education 35
Nutrition 19
2
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 2: Referrals by Sector

Of the referred feedback, 6 tickets were still being processed at time of report generation with 6 Open and 0 in-progress. Another, 21 tickets had received a response from the service provider, but CCCM has yet to close the feedback loop and inform the person of the provider’s response.

The most common responses from service providers are as follows: by the service providers were TBC, TBC, and TBC. FSL has the highest response rate, while Protection has the lowest.

Referrals and resolution rate by Sector
sector referred resolved % resolved
Education 35 6 17%
CCCM 74 8 11%
Health 76 6 8%
WASH 186 11 6%
Nutrition 19 1 5%
FSL 145 6 4%
Protection 65 2 3%
SNFI 189 4 2%
2 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 3: Referrals and resolution rate by Sector
Figure 4: Response reason per sector

Within the reporting period, TBC% of referred tickets were closed by CCCM – meaning that CCCM followed up with the person after completing the referral. On average it took 47.1 days from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete.

Figure 5: Referral response time (days)

Of the 21 replies completed, 44 issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and 189 issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates as reported by the service provider and the affected person who provided the feedback. By resolution, we understand it means the person has been provided with an adequate solution that addresses their feedback. For many reasons, people may not be able to receive assistance because of eligibility, funding or other operational constraints. The table below also contains percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved. A low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. To find out more about this see the methods section here.

Comparison of replies and resolution by service providers and affected population
sector replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved both % resolved both
1 0 0 0 NaN
Education 35 6 13 5 36%
CCCM 74 8 28 5 16%
WASH 183 11 63 10 16%
Health 73 6 15 2 11%
FSL 139 6 29 2 6%
SNFI 182 4 33 0 0%
Protection 64 2 7 0 0%
Nutrition 18 1 1 0 0%
1 Reported resolved by the service provider. 2 Reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 6: Comparison of replies and resolution by service providers and affected population

The rate of resolution according to service providers reporting has changed by TBC% when compared to last reporting period. Education has the highest resolution rate when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

The table below shows the top 5 feedback topics that were referred during this reporting period with Food Ration as the top feedback received. This type of assistance saw a Food Ration% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

Top 5 referred feedback
feedback_about referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Food Ration 113 110 97% 4633 25% 4%
HH Shelter Repairs 70 68 97% 2870 23% 1%
NFI Kits or items 54 53 98% 2214 17% 0%
Latrine 51 50 98% 2091 27% 4%
Dignity Kit 33 33 100% 1353 9% 6%
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 7: Top 5 referred feedback

Of the issues that have been closed, 57.5{ perc_replied_expired_tickets} % of these issues CCCM did not receive a response from the responsible service provider. CCCM limits the time service providers must respond in 30 days to ensure the feedback loop is closed in a timely manner, and prevent tickets being left open indefinitely. During the follow-up for expired tickets, people are always provided a chance to report their issue again if it is still relevant. During this period, there was an TBC% increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period.

Ticket expiry by Sector
sector referred expired expiry rate
SNFI 189 132 70%
FSL 145 94 65%
Nutrition 19 12 63%
WASH 186 112 60%
CCCM 74 44 59%
Education 35 19 54%
2 1 50%
Health 76 38 50%
Protection 65 28 43%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 8: Ticket expiry by Sector

3 Sectors

This section provides analysis of each sector, providing an overview of the main feddback to each sector, their reply and response performance as well as a breakdown by region.

For the initial draft stage, the figures just appear for the first secotrs - CCCM. Once the text is finalized, the figures will also appear for the other secotrs*

3.1 CCCM

3.1.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, CCCM received 78 pieces of community feedback collected across 30 Sites. CCCM received a total of CCCM of the total tickets received – an increase/decrease of TBC% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from Sebacare 4, Taba Weyane Tsinat Primary School, and Guna Poultry Farm.

Of the total feedback received, 74 tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and 4 tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with Over the reporting period, Communal Kitchen as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a TBC% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, 0 tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with 0, and 0 had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Closed upon receipt 5 5 100%
Lack of Funding 8 8 100%
Can't Resolve 1 1 100%
Pending 4 4 100%
Resolved 8 8 100%
4 4 100%
No Response 44 44 100%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 9: CCCM Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, 100.0% of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were TBC,TBC, and TBC

On average it took 54.4 days from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in9 days for Site Maintenance and the slowest reply was completed in 299 for Communal Kitchen.

Figure 10: CCCM Referral response time

Of the 74 replies, 8 issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and 28 issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. TBC, and TBC have the highest percentage of confirmed resolution whereas, TBC and TBC have the lowest per centage.

CCCM - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Communal Kitchen 21 21 100% 55 33% 10%
Communal buildings or facilities 14 14 100% 35 29% 7%
Solar street Lights 12 12 100% 44 33% 0%
Site Maintenance 9 9 100% 68 44% 0%
Campaigns & Activities & Trainings 4 4 100% 38 50% 50%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 11: CCCM Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has changed by 5.399999999999999 when compared to last reporting period. The CCCM sector is ranked number {python} m_sector_resolved_rate_rank for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
Communal Kitchen 21 21 2 7 8 1 5%
Communal buildings or facilities 14 14 1 4 5 0 0%
Solar street Lights 12 12 0 4 4 0 0%
Site Maintenance 9 9 0 4 4 0 0%
Campaigns & Activities & Trainings 4 4 2 2 2 2 50%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 12: CCCM Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, 59.5% were for expired tickets. This was 84.2105263157895% change since last reporting period.

CCCM - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
74 44 59%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 13: CCCM Ticket expiry

3.1.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the CCCM sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is Tigray with61.5% of total feedback.

Sebacare 4 site has the highest number of tickets.

Figure 14: CCCM regional map
CCCM - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Tigray 44 44 100% 45 32% 7%
SNNP 14 14 100% 41 21% 7%
Oromia 16 16 100% 45 69% 25%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 15: CCCM feedback per region

Of the 74 replies, Agricultural Office has the higest reply rate, while Gomola, has the lowest reply rate of all sectors.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is Tulo Town (Hirna Town) with 275 as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, Lekatit 23 Secondary School with 22 as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

CCCM - feedback - top 3 topics
Region Solar street Lights Communal buildings or facilities Communal Kitchen
SNNP 2 3 2
Oromia 4 3 3
Tigray 6 8 16
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 16: CCCM feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates areTiro Gudo New , Woreda Youth Association Hall , and Tiro Gudo New according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

CCCM - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Tigray 44 44 100% 45 11 78
Oromia 16 16 100% 45 27 299
SNNP 14 14 100% 41 9 160
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 17: CCCM reply time
CCCM - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Tigray 44 44 14 3 1 6%
Oromia 16 16 11 4 3 25%
SNNP 14 14 3 1 1 33%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 18: CCCM comparison of replies and resolution per Region

3.2 Education

3.2.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Resolved 6 6 100%
No Response 19 19 100%
Closed upon receipt 1 1 100%
No Agency or Service 3 3 100%
Lack of Funding 6 6 100%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 19: Education Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 20: Education referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

Education - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) 25 25 100% 37 36% 20%
Temporarly Learning Centre 4 4 100% 34 50% 25%
School 3 3 100% 49 0% 0%
School Feeding Program 3 3 100% 32 67% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 21: Education Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

Education - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) 25 25 5 9 10 4 16%
Temporarly Learning Centre 4 4 1 2 2 1 25%
School 3 3 0 0 0 0 0%
School Feeding Program 3 3 0 2 2 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 22: Education Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

Education - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
35 19 54%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 23: Education Ticket expiry

3.2.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 24: Education regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

Education - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Oromia 17 17 100% 32 53% 29%
Tigray 12 12 100% 40 8% 8%
SNNP 6 6 100% 43 50% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 25: Education feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

Education - feedback - top 3 topics
Region School materials and equipment (books, uniform etc.) School Feeding Program Temporarly Learning Centre
Oromia 14 2 None
SNNP 2 1 1
Tigray 9 None 3
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 26: Education feedback - top 3 topics
Education - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Tigray 12 12 100% 40 34 78
SNNP 6 6 100% 43 25 56
Oromia 17 17 100% 32 13 105
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 27: Education reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Education - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
SNNP 6 6 3 0 0 0%
Tigray 12 12 1 1 1 100%
Oromia 17 17 9 5 4 40%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 28: Education comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.3 FSL

3.3.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Pending 2 2 100%
Resolved 6 6 100%
Can t Verify 1 1 100%
Closed upon receipt 6 6 100%
No Response 94 93 99%
Lack of Funding 16 15 94%
No Agency or Service 12 11 92%
6 5 83%
Can't Resolve 2 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 29: FSL Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 30: FSL referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

FSL - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Food Ration 113 110 97% 41 25% 4%
Cash Assistance for Food 18 17 94% 42 6% 6%
Supplementary Food Support 6 5 83% 34 0% 0%
Income activities 3 3 100% 79 0% 33%
2 1 50% 35 0% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 31: FSL Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
Food Ration 113 110 4 28 31 1 1%
Cash Assistance for Food 18 17 1 1 1 1 6%
Supplementary Food Support 6 5 0 0 0 0 0%
Income activities 3 3 1 0 1 0 0%
Agriculture (farming, gardening and seeds) 2 2 0 0 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 32: FSL Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

FSL - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
145 94 65%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 33: FSL Ticket expiry

3.3.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 34: FSL regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

FSL - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Somali 1 1 100% 176 0% 0%
SNNP 22 21 95% 42 9% 0%
Tigray 87 84 97% 35 18% 3%
Oromia 35 33 94% 53 31% 9%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 35: FSL feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

FSL - feedback - top 3 topics
Region Food Ration Supplementary Food Support Cash Assistance for Food
Oromia 27 1 3
SNNP 8 3 8
Somali 1 None None
Tigray 77 2 7
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 36: FSL feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

FSL - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Tigray 87 84 97% 35 0 112
SNNP 22 21 95% 42 0 123
Somali 1 1 100% 176 176 176
Oromia 35 33 94% 53 0 112
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 37: FSL reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

FSL - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Tigray 87 84 16 3 1 6%
SNNP 22 21 2 0 0 0%
Oromia 35 33 11 3 1 8%
Somali 1 1 0 0 0 NaN
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 38: FSL comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.4 Health

3.4.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
No Agency or Service 2 2 100%
Closed upon receipt 2 2 100%
Lack of Funding 5 5 100%
Can t Verify 2 2 100%
Can't Resolve 2 2 100%
Resolved 6 6 100%
No Response 38 37 97%
19 17 89%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 39: Health Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 40: Health referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

Health - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Mobile Health 29 27 93% 58 24% 3%
MHPSS 13 13 100% 28 8% 23%
Health Clinic (inside camp) 11 10 91% 44 9% 0%
Health Post 7 7 100% 33 43% 0%
Emergency Transport (general) 7 7 100% 34 0% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 41: Health Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

Health - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
Mobile Health 29 27 1 7 8 0 0%
MHPSS 13 13 3 1 4 0 0%
Health Clinic (inside camp) 11 10 0 1 1 0 0%
Health Post 7 7 0 3 3 0 0%
Emergency Transport (general) 7 7 0 0 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 42: Health Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

Health - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
76 38 50%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 43: Health Ticket expiry

3.4.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 44: Health regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

Health - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Oromia 2 2 100% 72 0% 0%
SNNP 14 12 86% 41 21% 0%
Tigray 60 59 98% 34 20% 10%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 45: Health feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

Health - feedback - top 3 topics
Region MHPSS Mobile Health Health Clinic (inside camp)
SNNP 3 4 None
Tigray 10 25 11
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 46: Health feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

Health - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Tigray 60 59 98% 34 0 98
SNNP 14 12 86% 41 0 83
Oromia 2 2 100% 72 50 94
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 47: Health reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Health - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Tigray 60 59 12 6 2 12%
SNNP 14 12 3 0 0 0%
Oromia 2 2 0 0 0 NaN
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 48: Health comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.5 Shelter & NFI

3.5.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Resolved 4 4 100%
Pending 4 4 100%
Closed upon receipt 2 2 100%
Not eligible 1 1 100%
Lack of Funding 13 13 100%
Can't Resolve 1 1 100%
No Response 132 129 98%
No Agency or Service 20 18 90%
12 10 83%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 49: SNFI Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 50: SNFI referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

SNFI - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
HH Shelter Repairs 70 68 97% 51 23% 1%
NFI Kits or items 54 53 98% 38 17% 0%
Shelter Materials or Kits 24 22 92% 50 12% 4%
Construction of New Shelter 22 21 95% 54 9% 0%
Cash assistance for Shelter / NFIs 8 8 100% 45 25% 25%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 51: SNFI Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
HH Shelter Repairs 70 68 1 16 17 0 0%
NFI Kits or items 54 53 0 9 9 0 0%
Shelter Materials or Kits 24 22 1 3 4 0 0%
Construction of New Shelter 22 21 0 2 2 0 0%
Cash assistance for Shelter / NFIs 8 8 2 2 4 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 52: SNFI Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

SNFI - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
189 132 70%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 53: SNFI Ticket expiry

3.5.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 54: SNFI regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

SNFI - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Oromia 31 29 94% 64 29% 0%
SNNP 24 19 79% 54 21% 0%
Tigray 134 134 100% 41 14% 3%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 55: SNFI feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

SNFI - feedback - top 3 topics
Region NFI Kits or items Shelter Materials or Kits HH Shelter Repairs
Oromia 14 6 7
SNNP 3 7 8
Tigray 37 11 55
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 56: SNFI feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

SNFI - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Oromia 31 29 94% 64 0 275
SNNP 24 19 79% 54 0 145
Tigray 134 134 100% 41 6 104
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 57: SNFI reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

SNFI - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Tigray 134 134 19 4 0 0%
Oromia 31 29 9 0 0 0%
SNNP 24 19 5 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 58: SNFI comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.6 Nutrition

3.6.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Resolved 1 1 100%
No Response 12 12 100%
Not eligible 1 1 100%
Lack of Funding 5 4 80%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 59: Nutrition Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 60: Nutrition referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

Nutrition - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Nutrition Supplements and support 18 17 94% 60 6% 6%
1 1 100% 37 0% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 61: Nutrition Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
Nutrition Supplements and support 18 17 1 1 2 0 0%
1 1 0 0 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 62: Nutrition Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

Nutrition - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
19 12 63%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 63: Nutrition Ticket expiry

3.6.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 64: Nutrition regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

Nutrition - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
SNNP 4 4 100% 69 0% 0%
Oromia 2 2 100% 60 0% 0%
Tigray 13 12 92% 52 8% 8%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 65: Nutrition feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

Nutrition - feedback - top 3 topics
Region Nutrition Supplements and support
SNNP 4 None
Oromia 2 None
Tigray 12 1
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 66: Nutrition feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

Nutrition - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
SNNP 4 4 100% 69 30 104
Tigray 13 12 92% 52 0 81
Oromia 2 2 100% 60 41 79
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 67: Nutrition reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Nutrition - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Oromia 2 2 0 0 0 NaN
SNNP 4 4 0 0 0 NaN
Tigray 13 12 1 1 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 68: Nutrition comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

3.7 Protection

3.7.1 Overview

Over the reporting period, {sector} received {s_count_ticket} pieces of community feedback collected across {s_sites} Sites. {Sector} received a total of {% sector tickets by total received} of the total tickets received by CCCM – an increase/decrease of XX% during this reporting period. The most feedback was collected from {name_top sites 1}, {name_top sites 2}, and {name_ top sites 3}, which received {% of site tickets by sector total} of the feedback.

Of the total feedback received, {# of referred} tickets were referred to the responsible service providers, and {# of closed upon receipt} tickets were closed upon receipt . The table below shows the top 5 tickets that were referred during this reporting period with {top issue named here} as the top feedback received for the sector. This issue saw a X% increase or decrease in tickets when compared to the last reporting period.

For the referred tickets, {# active tickets} tickets were still being processed at time the of report generation with {# active referrals (Open+ in-progress)}, and {# responded} had received a response from the service provider but yet to be followed-up by CCCM at the time of reporting.

Sectoral reply rate
reason_current referred replied % replied
Resolved 2 2 100%
Lack of Funding 19 19 100%
Can't Resolve 4 4 100%
No Agency or Service 2 2 100%
Closed upon receipt 3 3 100%
No Response 28 28 100%
7 6 86%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 69: Protection Sectoral reply rate

Within the reporting period, % of referred tickets were replied to by CCCM and then closed. The most common responses received by the service providers were {response 1 name and % of total replies}, {response 2 name and % of total replies}, and {response 3 name and % of total replies}.

On average it took {# days_received_reply_date} from when a ticket was received to when a reply was complete. The fastest reply was completed in {lowest # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about} and the slowest reply was completed in {maximum # days_received_reply_date} for {feedback_about}.

Figure 70: Protection referral response time

Of the {count_replies} completed, {} issues were resolved as reported by the service provider and {# resolved by affected pop.} issues were resolved as reported by the people who submitted the feedback.

The below table breaks down the resolution rates from the two sources by the different categories of feedback. {name feedback about 1St}, and {name feedback about 2nd} have the highest per centage of confirmed resolution whereas, {name feedback about 2nd last} and {name feedback about last} have the lowest per centage.

Protection - Comparison of tickets by topic
feedback referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Dignity Kit 33 33 100% 33 9% 6%
Child Friendly Spaces 7 6 86% 45 14% 0%
Disability support 5 5 100% 38 20% 0%
Community Discrimination 4 4 100% 30 0% 0%
3 3 100% 51 33% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 71: Protection Comparison of tickets by topic
Note

For feedback categories with a lower percentage of confirmed resolution, we suggest a more in-depth review these feedback types to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.”

The rate of resolution according to service provider reporting has {rate of resolution increased/decreased by %} when compared to last reporting period. The {name of sector} is ranked {sector ranking for resolutions} for the most resolutions when compared to other sectors in the reporting period.

Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution
feedback referred replied resolved by SP1 resolved by AP2 resolved by either resolved by both % resolved by both
Dignity Kit 33 33 2 3 5 0 0%
Child Friendly Spaces 7 6 0 1 1 0 0%
Disability support 5 5 0 1 1 0 0%
Community Discrimination 4 4 0 0 0 0 0%
Support for ID or documentation 3 3 0 0 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 72: Protection Comparison of replies and resolution

Of the total replies, {expired tickets} % were for expired tickets which means 1 in # people were told though CCCM referred their feedback they were unable to get a response from the providers. This was XX % increase or decrease in the number of expires since last reporting period. Feedback about {name of description highest % of no response compared total replies} were most likely to expire with {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers than feedback about {name of description lowest % of no response compared to its total replies} which only has {% of expired replies} of replies containing no response from the service providers.

Protection - Ticket expiry
referred expired expiry rate
65 28 43%
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 73: Protection Ticket expiry

3.7.2 Region

The map below shows all the CCCM managed sites that received feedback about the {name of sector} sector during the reporting period. The region that received the most amount feedback is {name of region} with {% of total feedback received by region} total feedback received by the region.

When looking at the portion of the tickets received compared to the total population living in the sites, {name of site with highest proportion of pop} has the highest proportion of tickets compared to the population size. This signals good reach of the CFM program, and it might suggest a possible unmet need or problem that needs further investigation by the relevant service providers.

To report feedback people are reaching CCCM mostly through {most common feedback channel for sector}.

Figure 74: Protection regional map

Of the {# referred tickets} referred tickets, sites in {northernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_northernmost_region1}, whereas sites in {sothernmost_region1_feedback} received more feedback about {top_description_sothernmost_region 1}.

Protection - feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Tigray 53 52 98% 33 8% 4%
Oromia 3 3 100% 34 67% 0%
Somali 1 1 100% 66 0% 0%
SNNP 8 8 100% 33 12% 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 75: Protection feedback per region

Of the {# replies}, {location1_top % of replies}, {location2_ top % of replies}, and {location3_ top % of replies}, have the highest percentage of replies for the sector in comparison to all other sites.

The site that takes the longest to process feedback is {site_name_highest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date. On the other end of the scale, {site_name_lowest_avg_days} with {# avg_days} as the average number of days between received date to closed date.

Protection - feedback - top 3 topics
Region Child Friendly Spaces Dignity Kit Disability support
SNNP 2 3 None
Oromia None 1 None
Tigray 5 28 5
Somali None 1 None
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 76: Protection feedback - top 3 topics

The sites with the highest resolution rates are {site_1st_res_rate}, {site_2nd_res_rate}, and {site_3rd_res_rate} according to reports from the service providers. The below graph shows the responses to referred feedback by site fir this sector.

Protection - reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
SNNP 8 8 100% 33 10 64
Somali 1 1 100% 66 66 66
Tigray 53 52 98% 33 0 93
Oromia 3 3 100% 34 23 36
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 77: Protection reply time

When comparing the two sources of resolution, {site_1st_confirmed_res_rate}, {site_2nd_ confirmed_res_rate }, and {site_3rd_confirmed_res_rate } according to reports from the service providers.

Protection - Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Somali 1 1 0 0 0 NaN
Tigray 53 52 4 2 0 0%
Oromia 3 3 2 0 0 0%
SNNP 8 8 1 0 0 0%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 78: Protection comparison of replies and resolution per Region

For the following locations {list of sites with lower confirmation %} have a lower percentage of confirmed resolution than recommended. We suggest a more in-depth review of these locations for this sector to understand and address the contributing factors that might be causing the communication issue between CCCM and service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or both.

4 Regions

Feedback per region
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply % resolved by AP2 % resolved by SP1
Oromia 169 162 96% 49 43% 10%
Somali 2 2 100% 121 0% 0%
SNNP 110 102 93% 47 18% 1%
Tigray 510 503 99% 38 19% 5%
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 79: Feedback per region
Feedback - top 3 topics
Region NFI Kits or items HH Shelter Repairs Food Ration
Oromia 14 7 27
SNNP 3 8 8
Somali None None 1
Tigray 37 55 77
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 80: Feedback - top 3 topics
Reply time
Region referred replied % replied median days-to-reply quickest reply (days) slowest reply (days)
Tigray 510 503 99% 38 0 129
SNNP 110 102 93% 47 0 160
Somali 2 2 100% 121 66 176
Oromia 169 162 96% 49 0 299
Source: IOM & partners
Note: Zero values may signify either same-day reply or that that all replies are still pending
Figure 81: Reply time
Comparison of replies and resolution per Region
Region referred replied resolved by AP2 resolved by SP1 resolved_both % resolved by both
Tigray 510 503 96 26 11 10%
Oromia 169 162 73 17 12 15%
SNNP 110 102 20 1 1 5%
Somali 2 2 0 0 0 NaN
Source: IOM & partners
1 % of referrals reported resolved by the service provider
2 % of referrals reported resolved by the person who reported the feedback
Figure 82: Reply time

5 Sites

Tigray - Sites
site_id site name referred replied resolved median days-to-reply link
ET010707001001 Sebacare 4 109 109 8 43 dashboard
ET010702004001 Momona Secondary School 35 35 3 32 dashboard
ET010704001002 Lekatit 11 Elementary School 26 26 0 32 dashboard
ET010108001001 Guna Poultry Farm 25 25 0 44 dashboard
ET010706001001 Adiha Secondary School 25 25 0 43 dashboard
ET010108004003 Taba Weyane Tsinat Primary School 21 21 0 49 dashboard
ET010108005002 Tsehaye Elementary school 21 19 0 35 dashboard
ET010706003001 Lekatit 23 Secondary School 21 21 2 42 dashboard
ET010212001001 Adwa industrial Zone (AIZ) 18 18 4 36 dashboard
ET010212004004 Nigste Saba Secondary School 18 18 3 19 dashboard
ET010108005001 Midregenet Secondary School 17 17 0 46 dashboard
ET010308002001 UNMEE 16 16 0 48 dashboard
ET010212004005 Nigste Saba Secondary School 2 16 16 1 30 dashboard
ET010108002002 Atsede Kindergarten 15 15 0 33 dashboard
ET010308003001 Commission 15 15 0 34 dashboard
ET010114001001 Endabaguna Screening Center 14 13 0 40 dashboard
ET010114001004 Endabaguna Reception Center 12 11 0 34 dashboard
ET010212002001 Enda Tsion Elementary School 11 9 1 72 dashboard
ET010108002003 Fre Swuat Secondary school 11 11 0 64 dashboard
ET010108004004 Shire Kebele 03 - ABA 9 9 0 32 dashboard
ET010110001002 Farmers Training Center 9 9 0 78 dashboard
ET010212005002 Korea Secondary School 8 8 1 39 dashboard
ET010108002004 Shire Kebele 02 - ABA 7 6 0 26 dashboard
ET010212001002 Wowokma Elementary school 7 7 0 38 dashboard
ET010111001001 Adi Daero Elementary School 7 7 0 85 dashboard
ET010212001001_temp Adwa Debrichi Kebele - ABA 6 6 0 34 dashboard
ET010706002002 Mesebo Secondary School 5 5 0 55 dashboard
ET010212009001 Adwa Miebale Kebele - ABA 5 5 2 28 dashboard
ET010212003001 Adwa Hayelom Kebele - ABA 1 1 1 27 dashboard
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 83: Tigray sites
Somali - Sites
site_id site name referred replied resolved median days-to-reply link
ET010702002001 Ethio China friendship primary School 1 1 0 66 dashboard
ET041015001002 Wara Yaya/Sheik Madobe/ 1 1 0 176 dashboard
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 84: Somali sites
SNNP - Sites
site_id site name referred replied resolved median days-to-reply link
ET071302004002 Lultu Magazine 34 34 0 42 dashboard
ET071302003001 Gelabo FTC 21 17 0 55 dashboard
ET071302004001 Kutiso Market 20 20 0 36 dashboard
ET071302001001 Ayilota Dokatu 14 14 1 29 dashboard
ET071303002001 Gomola 9 7 0 47 dashboard
ET071302002001 Balbala 6 6 0 123 dashboard
ET071303004001 Segen Mezegaja 4 4 0 124 dashboard
ET071303002003 Turo 2 0 0 None dashboard
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 85: SNNP sites
Oromia - Sites
site_id site name referred replied resolved median days-to-reply link
ET050203001002 Qoliji 2 26 26 2 65 dashboard
ET050203001001 Qoliji 22 22 1 73 dashboard
ET041015003001 Tiro Gudo New 19 17 5 49 dashboard
ET041010002001 Karamile 13 13 3 27 dashboard
ET041010001001 Agricultural Office 13 12 3 28 dashboard
ET041009001001 Chelenko food store 10 10 0 41 dashboard
ET041011001003 New Golmasa 8 8 1 91 dashboard
ET040903001002 Tulo Town (Hirna Town) 7 7 0 61 dashboard
ET041008001001 Kersa Town 7 7 0 32 dashboard
ET041010003001 Ganda Wagayehu 7 7 0 16 dashboard
ET041010001002 Ali Sheko Camp 7 7 0 31 dashboard
ET041015004001 Wara Somane 7 5 0 49 dashboard
ET040908001001 Gelemso 01 6 6 0 26 dashboard
ET041011002001 Fadiso 5 5 0 53 dashboard
ET041015002001 Qobo Biqa 5 3 0 50 dashboard
ET041011001006 Woreda Water Office 3 3 1 105 dashboard
ET041011001007 Woreda Youth Association Hall 2 2 1 96 dashboard
ET040903001001 New Extension Site 1 1 0 275 dashboard
ET040901001001 Ganda Buno 1 1 0 30 dashboard
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 86: Oromia sites

6 Context & approach

Sentences about the context and the CFM program ran by CCCM provided by the mission. Any updates or changes to the program since last report. - Overall number of sites - Number of agencies - Number of CCCM staff (F/M)

Sentence here by mission explaining the feedback channels used and if there are difference in approach in different location. The channels used for collection and replies.

Of the feedback submitted, the top common feedback channels used by the affected population to reach CCCM to provide their feedback are At their house;54.9, At the IOM office;23.5, andCommunity Committee;6.2.

Those reporting feedback are more likely to report issues on behalf of For themselves:51.8%, followed by For group of people or community:31.3% and Entire site or block:11.2%.

Channel usage by groups
channel For themselves For group of people or community For somebody else Entire site or block
Help desk 225 75 20 31
help desk 1 0 0 0
CCCM Mobile Collector 191 155 22 43
Community Committee 10 23 5 15
Community Meeting 12 13 2 5
Referral from another agency / team / govt 2 0 0 1
Source: IOM & partners
Figure 87: Channel usage by groups

The below chart displays the affected population preferences of the feedback channels available by the 58 locations where CCCM is operating.

Figure 88: Tickets received per channel
Figure 89: Channel usage by region

Often different demographics groups have different preferences and abilities which impact their access and usages of the available feedback channels. In this reporting period, men reached CCCM through

shape: (6, 5)
channel_receivedMaleFemaleOther
stru32u32u32u32
"CCCM Mobile Co…17823201
"Help desk"16318710
"Community Comm…272600
"Community Meet…211100
"help desk"0100
"Referral from …0300
feedback channel and {python} m_wmn_top_channel for women, with 54.1 of tickets submitted by women and 45.7 submitted by men. The most feedback came from Female between the ages of Adult (18-59), followed by Male between the ages of Adult (18-59), and Female between the ages of Older person (60+).

The below charts outline the preferences and access of vulnerable households and vulnerable individuals such as those with disabilities or households with pregnant or lactating women to the feedback channels.

Figure 90: Channel usage by groups

When following up with the person who provide the feedback, the most common way CCCM provides replies are {python m_top_channel_1_name: {python m_top_channel_1_perc%, and {python m_top_channel_2_name: {python m_top_channel_2_perc%. CCCM will also try to reach the person who reported the feedback directly either over the phone or in-person. However, if the person can’t be contacted neighbours, other family members pr community leaders are requested to pass the message on to the person on CCCM’s behalf. There is no significant difference between the demographic of the person who reported the feedback and the reply channel used. This is because CCCM staff are instructed to follow same protocol when completing replies: first try direct contact in-person or by phone (if a phone number was provided), and if this is unsuccessful to try and contact people connected to the individual. Then after a fixed number of attempts over multiple days if no contact is made with the person or any related contacts, the case can be closed without a reply.

7 Methodology

The report contains the analysis of the non-sensitive, operational feedback received by CCCM actors using Zite Manager. The community feedback is gathered and managed through the platform, Zite Manager, which helps tracks information about feedback across the entire referral process, including the response given by the relevant service providers and whether the person received a follow-up with this information.

The data directly reflects the daily activity of the CCCM actors, and the responses from the service providers receiving the feedback. The system is live, and the results change as feedback moves through the system.

The report is designed to be used by all humanitarian responders to support continued improvement of how the humanitarian system responses to community feedback.

To see the live operational CFM dashboard which updates daily and is designed to support CCCM teams manage feedback and coordination with other partners - www.zitemanager.org/countries

Please note the following while reading this report:

Community feedback is not a needs assessment: Do not use community feedback alone to compare needs between areas because different populations have different awareness and access to CFM systems. This information should be complimented by needs assessments and service monitoring data to gain an overall understanding of needs.

Community feedback is dynamic data that changes: CCCM and service providers are actively processing feedback daily. Only closed tickets will remain the same as no more action is required. So, the total number of active tickets (tickets with a status of open, in-process or responded) will change daily and the date the report is generate will input this number. This means the numbers change as tickets move through the CFM cycle.

Referrals are the responsibility of CCCM actors: Referrals are automatically generated and organized by sector through the system; however the actual transfer of referral data is under management of individual CCCM actors. If service providers are not receiving referrals but think they should be, please contact the related CCCM actor to discuss with them.

There are a number of reasons feedback may go unresolved: This may be due to funding, contextual reasons, access, technical feasibility, targeting criteria, and other informationem.

7.1 Terminology

Ticket: Each piece of feedback or ticket represents one issue, need or report only. Community feedback is not collected by household, so one person or household may have reported more than one problem. For example, having lost their ID and missed a distribution. One issue could also represent a problem faced by more than one person or household, such as a broken water tap.

Received: Total pieces of feedback (also known as tickets) that were received in the reporting period.

Referred: Tickets that were referred to sector partners for their assessment, action (if possible) and response. Not all tickets are referred depending on the type of feedback reported. If a ticket is Referred or not is based on the CFM sector standards circulated by CCCM cluster/sector.

Closed Upon Receipt: Are tickets that are not referred because they are addressed immediately, or we know it cannot be resolved (e.g., no agency providing that service), the ticket is “closed upon receipt” and is not referred.

Responded awaiting reply: Tickets that have received a response from an service providers but the response has not been provided to the person who reported the problem yet. CCCM partners have a commitment towards following-up with affected persons and closing the feedback loop.

Expired or ‘No Response’: If no response is received by the responsible service provider within 30 days of referral, the ticket is marked as having “No Response” and is sent automatically for follow-up. This means that CCCM must explain to the person that a response could not be obtained from the service provider and the ticket is closed.

Responses by Service Provider: To support analysis, service provider’s responses are coded according to a list of common reasons why a piece of feedback could not be addressed. Resolved means the service provider has resolved the issue.

Reported Resolution by the affected population: During the follow up, people have a chance to report whether the response has resolved their issue (Yes, No, Partially or Don’t know). This information is then visualized to record people’s perception of whether their feedback is resolved.

The analysis also compares the two resolution rates to communicate the percentage of cases where both service provider and affected person report the issue as resolved.

When interpreting these figures, it is important to understand that a low percentage of confirmed resolution rates suggests a possible communication issue between CCCM and the service provider or between the CFM staff completing the reply process with the affected community, or a combination of both. For example, if there is no response from the service provider to CCCM, the ticket it is not considered resolved by service provider, but the person who reported the feedback might report the feedback as resolved for other reasons. However, we don’t expect to see a 100% confirmation rate for resolution because it is normal to see differences. For example, the service provider might consider their actions to a piece of feedback to be a resolution, but the person who reported the feedback might not agree and reported the feedback as partially resolved or unresolved.